東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven...

Shouba, Derek.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality./
作者:	Shouba, Derek.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2017,
面頁冊數:	201 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-02(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-02A(E).
標題:	Community college education. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10622661
ISBN:	9780355414950

Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality.
Shouba, Derek.

Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 201 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-02(E), Section: A.

Thesis (D.Mgt.)--University of Maryland University College, 2017.

Americans are increasingly concerned about academic quality (Hauptman & Kim, 2009). This concern about academic quality is a product of the relative decline of the American economy, American Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores, American baccalaureate attainment rates, and various other indicators of national competitiveness (Kanter, 2011). Educating about 40% of all postsecondary students and suffering from persistently low completion rates, community colleges are not immune from public concern about academic quality (Alstadt, Fingerhut, & Kazis, 2012). Pressure on community college leaders to promote academic quality comes from a variety of quarters, including students and parents, faculty and staff members, board members, program and regional accreditors, funding agencies, citizens, taxpayers, employers, and state and federal government agencies (Hom, 2011). Unfortunately, different community college stakeholders have different, and often shifting, definitions of academic quality (Newton, 2010). The open-ended nature of the term quality makes such complexity possible, if not inevitable. As Bassis (2015) asserted, issues related to academic quality are disconcerting and perspectives vary widely, "influenced in no small part by where one sits" (p. 2).

ISBN: 9780355414950Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122836
Community college education.

Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality.
LDR:03961nmm a2200337 4500 001 2165487
005 20181129115552.5
008 190424s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780355414950
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10622661
035 $a (MiAaPQ)umuc:10353
035 $a AAI10622661
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Shouba, Derek. $3 3353568
245 1 0 $a Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 201 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-02(E), Section: A.
500 $a Advisers: Glickman Gena; Bers Trudy.
502 $a Thesis (D.Mgt.)--University of Maryland University College, 2017.
520 $a Americans are increasingly concerned about academic quality (Hauptman & Kim, 2009). This concern about academic quality is a product of the relative decline of the American economy, American Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores, American baccalaureate attainment rates, and various other indicators of national competitiveness (Kanter, 2011). Educating about 40% of all postsecondary students and suffering from persistently low completion rates, community colleges are not immune from public concern about academic quality (Alstadt, Fingerhut, & Kazis, 2012). Pressure on community college leaders to promote academic quality comes from a variety of quarters, including students and parents, faculty and staff members, board members, program and regional accreditors, funding agencies, citizens, taxpayers, employers, and state and federal government agencies (Hom, 2011). Unfortunately, different community college stakeholders have different, and often shifting, definitions of academic quality (Newton, 2010). The open-ended nature of the term quality makes such complexity possible, if not inevitable. As Bassis (2015) asserted, issues related to academic quality are disconcerting and perspectives vary widely, "influenced in no small part by where one sits" (p. 2).
520 $a A community college leader's decisions about academic quality can lead to the uneven distribution of academic, technological, or physical plant resources, and the downgrading of other, opposing stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality. When we choose one value-laden interpretation of the term quality, we invariably give up on another incommensurate interpretation of the same word (Kenny, 2000). As Northcraft and Neale (1996) argued, most organizational decisions between competing values inherently affect resource allocation. Community colleges leaders who fail to prioritize different stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality properly often fail to make informed strategic decisions that advance a college's mission (Hom, 2011).
520 $a Employing total quality management, stakeholder theory, and the theory of the public sphere, the researcher used a critical interpretative synthesis methodology to describe varied stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality and provide community college administrators with a theoretical model for prioritizing them. Total quality management provides a practical framework for incorporating customer feedback into an actionable definition of quality (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989; Sparks & Legault, 2001); stakeholder theory provides a method for broadening leaders' perspectives about an organization's purpose or bottom line (Freeman, 1984, 1994); and the theory of the public sphere offers leaders a theoretical model for understanding how men and women can democratically resolve differences between different or competing claims about values (Habermas, 1989).
590 $a School code: 1487.
650 4 $a Community college education. $3 2122836
650 4 $a Higher education administration. $3 2122863
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 641065
690 $a 0275
690 $a 0446
690 $a 0745
710 2 $a University of Maryland University College. $b Doctor of Management Program. $3 1026214
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-02A(E).
790 $a 1487
791 $a D.Mgt.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10622661